Dalip Singh vs Ram Singh

S.C. Malte, J.

This petition has been filed to challenge the order of dismissal of a Criminal Revision in default. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate by order dated 21.4.1993 dismissed the complaint at the precharge stage. Against that order the petitioner field a criminal revision and when that revision came before the Additional Sessions Judge, there was none present on behalf of the petitioner. Hence the petition came to be dismissed in default. Thereupon the petitioner moved the Additional Sessions Judge for restoration of the said revision. In view of that, on 26.7.1995, the petition was ordered to be restored on payment of Rs. 200/ as costs by or before 2.8.1995. The cost was, however, not paid by the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, on 2.8.1995 dismissed the said revision petition on finding that condition for restoration of the revision petition had not been complied. Against that order the present revision is filed.

At the outset, I would clarify that a criminal revision cannot be dismissed in default. If the petitioner or his counsel and the respondent and his counsel happened to be absent, there is no provision for passing order of dismissal in default. For that purpose the provisions of Sections 397 and 398 Cr.P.C. should be taken into consideration. It provide that the High Court or the Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of the proceedings before an inferior criminal Court within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence etc. .. In other words, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction takes place for the purpose of subjective and objective satisfaction by the Court in respect of legality etc. of the order in question. Such satisfaction can be of either suo moto or on the revision petition filed by either of the parties. But the position remains that where the parties and their counsel prefer to appear before the Court or remain absent that does not empower the Session Judge to dismiss the revision in default. Despite the absence of the parties and/or their counsel, the Session Judge is expected to consider the merits of the case and dispose it of. In view of that legal position, it is obvious that original order of dismissal of the revision petition by the Sessions Court was not correct and proper and does not deserve to be sustained.

Normally, under such circumstances, I would have allowed the revision petition and would have sent back the matter to the Sessions Court for considering it on merits. However, in exercise of my powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I decided to consider the merits of the case itself in order to ascertain whether any fruitful purpose can be achieved by thus protracting the litigation.

The counsel for the petitioner today submitted before me the copy of the complaint filed by him in the trial court. The substance in the complaint is that the respondentaccused filed an affidavit that his income does not exceed Rs. 3600/, though, in fact, he was drawing Rs. 580/ per month in the year 1987 when the affidavit was sworn in. On the basis of that statement in the affidavit, the accused is said to have obtained some benefits from the R.S. D. College, Ferozepur. On these allegations, it is claimed that offence under Sections 182, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was spelt out. The evidence before framing the charge was recorded. The learned Magistrate found that the accused Ram Singh had not secured admission on the basis of lower income certificate nor he himself received any concession or stipend on the basis of such certificate. The Magistrate further observed that the complaintant had no locus standi to file the complaint.

Section 182 IPC is attracted only in those cases where on the basis of false information, the complaintant causes the public servant to use his lawful authority to the injury of another person. Moreover, cognizance of the offence under Section 182 IPC can be taken only on the basis of complaint by the public servant concerned. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays a bar to the entertainment of such complaint except on the basis of complaint by the aggrieved public servant.

Section 420 IPC would come into play only when the complaintant is cheated by the accused. Here the admitted position is that the complainant himself was not cheated by some dishonest act allegedly committed by the respondent. Section 467 IPC pertains to forgery of a document. A plain reading of the complaint in this case would show that the said section is not attracted. Section 471 IPC pertains to using forged document as genuine.

I thus find that sending back the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge for the purpose of considering the revision on merits would be a needless exercise and would ultimately result into protraction of the matter with no useful purpose. Under these circumstances, this petition is dismissed.